Dante

I believe this question was actually addressed in one of the articles you were linked to: Simply because you and I have our rights protected by the same entity does not mean that I should get a vote about who you let live on your land, or who you hire to do labor. The minute an immigrant steps over the border, does he step on the U.S. government's land? No. He steps on a particular person's land. Only that particular person, the owner of the land, can bar him from entering. It is true that that particular person's right over his land is protected by the U.S. government, but that does not allow the U.S. government to have any say in who is allowed on that land. The U.S. government enforces my property rights over the books I own, but that does not mean that the government has a say in what I can and cannot read. As to your assertion that "The nature of a nation, the average lifestyle and level of civilisation it enjoys etc, depends upon the nature of the men who comprise it. Immigration is of course, mostly from bad to good countries, and thus open-immigration favours civil degeneration..." You seem to be asserting that mostly "bad" people live in "bad" countries, and this provides a justification for restricting entry from "bad" countries. Neither of these premises is true. Ayn Rand herself emigrated from Soviet Russia; should she have not been let in because most Russians were collectivist? Violating someone's rights based on a nonvolitional characteristic of them, such as where they happened to be born, is unjust. People should be judged according to the choices they actually make, not the circumstances into which they are born. Note that in all discussions about open immigration, we are talking about people who are not criminals and are not judged likely to be a danger to others. Binswanger, in the article I quoted from, specifically says: "Entry into the U.S. should ultimately be free for any foreigner, with the exception of criminals, would-be terrorists, and those carrying infectious diseases." Open immigration does not mean that a government cannot protect its citizens from outside threats. All it means is that people should not be judged a "threat" simply because they are a foreigner.

Predatory?

Here's a rap song that I think is reminiscent of Howard Roark's character in some ways, pretty much just the first two verses and Mike's final verse though. Fort Minor - Remember the Name http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SoSbLX3TBg...feature=related

You might make the point that in a free market, where individual rights are upheld and therefore coercion is banned from human interaction, the only way that one gains a disproportionate amount of "power" is by providing value to others and bettering their lives. If wealth cannot be gained by force or fraud, then those who maintain or increase their wealth will be doing so by providing others with value. To say that inequality between aristocrats and serfs is wrong is to say that B is wronged when A increases his wealth by taking from B. This statement is entirely proper. To say that inequality is wrong in a market context is to say that C is wronged when A and B better each other in a transaction which does not involve C. This statement is simply incorrect. The equivocation of market power and political power ignores the vital difference between inequality created by some making others worse off and the inequality created by some making others better off. There is a world of difference between the use of force and the practice of the trader principle. Inequality per se is not improper; it is an unavoidable consequence of people making their own lives better.

A real answer as to why the USSR can properly be called "leftist," and why leftists are incorrect when they maintain that their ideals lead to a society very much different from the USSR? Simply put, their ideals are not practicable in reality. Such leftism carves out an immense role for collectivized decision-making on a wide variety of topics; this is a necessary corollary to claiming that physical capital properly belongs to a group of people, rather than individual owners. However, collective decision-making simply does not work. Decision-making must be delegated to individuals, and collectivism morphs into fascism. I am speaking in very broad terms here, of course, and the outline of my argument draws heavily from Hayek's The Road To Serfdom; I would heavily recommend that work as a resource on why socialism must ultimately lead to a fascist structure such as the USSR.

The fact that someone makes an irrational choice does not indicate in any way that the person's rational faculty was not developed, only that they did not use it properly.

The two that I would most strongly recommend would be David Kelley's Evidence of the Senses and (especially) Tara Smith's Viable Values. Viable Values pretty much single-handedly convinced me of the correctness of an egoistic approach to ethics. I also gained some value from reading David Kelley and William Thomas' Beta version of The Logical Structure of Objectivism, although it diverges very significantly from Rand in both structure and content and therefore could not be termed "Objectivist." If you're interested in self-esteem issues, Branden has written oodles of books since his break with Rand which are, by and large, in the Objectivist tradition and can still be valuable. This goes without saying, but just read everything critically.

Objectivism holds that one should aim a happiness which is sustainable over the long term. It attempts to define the values which form the basis for this kind of happiness in order to guide each person in living well. What this means is that not everything which gives us pleasure is ultimately good for us. This is immediately apparent upon consideration; the pleasure from completing a productive enterprise is probably based on life-furthering values, while the pleasure from taking a hit of heroin is likely not based on sustainable values. Thus, our simple pleasure/pain mechanism is not enough to guide us. We must trace out the ultimate consequences of any potential source of pleasure or happiness. We must ask ourselves, what are the long-term consequences of this course of action? Is this pleasure caused by something which is going to help me in continuing to live well in the future? Or is it caused by something that's pleasurable now but will come back to bite me? The answers to these questions are not immediately apparent, and so we must use reason to find them. This is what is meant by always using reason in pursuing happiness. It's not that we should only try to get pleasure from activities which make us think or something like that; getting pleasure from jogging or some other mindless activity is fine. The important aspect to consider is whether jogging will be good for us or bad down the road, whether our indulging in it now will put us ahead of where we would have been without it, or behind. Rand characterizes the ultimate goal in terms of happiness as "non-contradictory joy," and we can now see what she means. We should only pursue those activities that give us happiness without any sort of residual guilt for worsening our position relative to living well for the future. Thus, we can see why the course towards which Objectivism guides us is very different from simple hedonism; happiness is an ultimate goal, but only a certain kind of happiness, one without unhealthy side effects.

So you're saying that they should identify the need for a government endowed with the power to protect these? I should think it would only be important to make that distinction if one were expecting one's audience to be significantly populated with anarchists, since they are the only ones who believe that the state is not necessary to provide at least some basic functions. Within the context of America, and addressing primarily people who acknowledge the need for government, I might well have left off a clause specifying the need for a government were I to write their statement of belief.

This does not follow. Objectivism holds that morality follows from an objective assessment of the facts by an independent mind. Morality is the chosen, it cannot be forced. The only way for a person to act morally long-term is for they themselves to understand the components of their own well-being and the principles that should guide them, and consistently make the right choices. Force is not a path to moral action. Additionally, why should I have an obligation to pay taxes which go towards making other people more moral? Even if that were a path to morality, I would not have an obligation to help them along. In an O'ist government, only rights violations should be illegal.

What exactly did you have in mind here?

What do you mean by "have something that is a lack of a value?" I would contend that yes, the thing they are trying to protect is a false value (by definition, in this scenario). However, the method by which they are trying to protect it (blackmail) is valid, even though they are in error about the value of the end goal. I would say that the ethical value of blackmail stands or falls on whether the object in question is being pursued as a gain or protected from a loss, and the ethical value of the object itself is a different matter (though both obviously deserve evaluation and deliberation by the individual). Hopefully this post sticks to blackmail enough; that is the method I'm referring to.

Interesting question... I would say that even if what you are trying to protect is not objectively valuable, there is no immorality in attempting to protect what you think is a value through blackmail. I would say this because the act of blackmailing to protect what you think is a value does not build up any habits that will be detrimental to you later in life. The fact that in this case your valuation is wrong does not introduce some negative effect on your character from the blackmail. Now, the fact that you are pursuing something that is not objectively valuable in the first place indicates either an error of knowledge or a moral failing prior to this "value" being threatened. Once that error is made, however, using blackmail to protect that value does not compound the error (or immorality).

Yes, ethically, it is most definitely wrong. You are threatening a disvalue in order to get someone to give you a value. This is a break from the trader principle, and this action negatively affects both your own life and the life of your victim. From your own perspective, this is an inferior method of gaining values when compared to producing values. Using it even just this once will have negative impacts on your character, making it harder for you to gain values in the future. Truly good methods of gaining value, like production, build up your character and make it easier to continue your value-gaining in the future. Threatening blackmail hinders the blackmailer's own life, in addition to (very obviously) being detrimental to the blackmailee; yet another illustration of the harmony of rational interests. Of course, if you are attempting to preserve a value (to keep from losing a value) rather than attempting to gain a value, blackmail may be an appropriate method. If you are trying to keep a corrupt government official from extorting payment, say, then blackmail would be ethically permissible to try to prevent this from happening.

Of course not. I'm just saying, just because you "threaten" someone with some unpleasant outcome does not mean you have violated their rights. It depends on what exactly you threaten to do, and whether you would have the right to do it. So, with blackmail, the question becomes: do you have a right to release information that negatively impacts the life of another? I'm not talking about trade secrets, or some piece of information that your victim has formal rights to. Just something that would make their life harder or more difficult. I don't see why you wouldn't have the right to.

But some threats are justified. It is okay to ask my employee to do his job and to threaten to fire him if he does not.

The law isn't there to promote "fairness," but to enforce individual rights. If blackmail is to be illegal, it must be tied to a violation of individual rights. Which I don't know if I can do, but I'm interested to see others weigh in.

I think the key to the first scenario would be to delve into exactly what the basis for this disinterest in homosexual men is. What experiences and subconscious premises underlie it? Why does it happen? These are some of the hardest questions to get answers to, and it would probably help to talk to people about it, particularly a psychologist or someone else who is experienced at getting people to understand their own emotions. Bringing the basis for this phenomenon into conscious awareness is the first step to resolving it. Easier said than done though, right?

This person could benefit immensely from reading for five minutes about the field of public choice economics. This columnist make the almost omnipresent assumption that incentives matter for private businessmen, but either do not matter or are not a problem with politicians and bureaucrats. The reality is that regulators have very little incentive to design regulations that work, and correspondingly little incentive to make sure that properly designed regulations, once formed, are adhered to. Meanwhile, there is an immense incentive for them to design regulations in such a way as to give competitive advantages to those companies that pay the most (the literature on rent-seeking). Government regulation is not an instant answer in dealing with potential issues. Once again, people fail to distinguish between proper deregulation, which allows individuals more freedom to use their own property, and improper deregulation, which simply reduces oversight designed to supervise individuals who have the authority to utilize other people's money, or pass risks onto others.

Well yes, I definitely agree with your list of vague elements, and I would very much like to see a more detailed and specific statement of principles underlying these beliefs. However, I did see some some very positive elements and the potential for an overall positive organization. Also, isn't voluntary association simply a restatement of respect for individual rights? The alternative to voluntary association is coercive interaction, which is a violation of rights. A system based on voluntary association is a system based on the principle that each individual should have the freedom to follow the convictions of his mind in deciding with whom to associate, correct? And it is this very freedom to adhere to one's own perception of reality which rights are designed to protect.

When I heard Allison speak, one of the subjects that he spoke on was his attitude towards shareholders and stakeholders. In running BB&T, he attempted to establish beneficial and positive long-term relationships with both shareholders and stakeholders. One example that he gave concerned the predatory loans and mortgages which were extended during the housing boom. Many banks took the attitude that they should simply extend as many mortgages as possible, as large as possible, to anyone who would take them. They did this because they were able to, for a time, sell off these mortgages to other entities which weren't looking too closely at how much they were worth. Allison avoided this whole fiasco, and his company was much better for it. He basically said that he avoided these sorts of activities, not out of an prescience that they would ultimately fail, but rather on the basis of the trader principle. The logic behind the trader principle encourages long-term, mutually beneficial relationships in which both sides offer value and neither side "sets up the other to fail," as often happened in the housing boom. Thus, Allison established beneficial relationships with his stakeholders, in addition to his shareholders. Allison also contributed to building up the communities where he has banks, mainly through the United Way I believe, out of a deference to the general harmony of interests and a knowledge that it is to the benefit of BB&T to do business in such environments. Thus, his business relationships are driven by the desire to always adhere to the trader principle and expect to extend genuine value in return for receiving value from others. It is primarily this concern for building up mutually beneficial business relationships, in which businessmen do not attempt to "get the better of" their stakeholders or shareholders, that I find present in this organization. There seems to be a very strong emphasis on adhering to the trader principle and the harmony of interests that arise when one always attempts to create value, rather than looking for the easiest way to take it. Is there something in particular that I have not mentioned that you think is poorly defined, or reminiscent of libertarians?

John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods and admirer of Ayn Rand, has formed (along with The Container Store, One Natural Experience, and Satori Capital) an organization called the Conscious Capitalism Alliance. From their "about" page: From their "What is Conscious Business?" They don't seem completely comfortable with the idea that profit and personal gain are completely compatible with a harmony of interests and purposeful, conscious business, but overall it seems like an organization which recognizes the virtuous nature of business and production. A lot of it reminds me of hearing John Allison speak about his approach to BB&T.

To most people, saying that an action is "evil" means that it must involve at least some conscious disregard towards the welfare of others. Murder is considered evil, but taking harmful drugs is merely irresponsible. Because there is no conscious intent to harm another person, that act is not normally considered evil. However, when Rand discusses evil, she puts forth a different conception of evil, and it is under this understanding of the term that altruism is "evil" (and taking harmful drugs would be as well). In the Objectivist ethics, she states, "Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." Thus, evil includes any action taken which is not wholly consistent with one's life as a rational being. I think this definition of evil leads to frequent misinterpretation of what Rand was saying, because it diverges significantly from what is commonly understood by "evil." Rand's conception of evil focuses on a disparity between what is actually required for man's life and what one does. It focuses on a physical relationship between what one does and what is good for oneself. However, we know that knowledge is not automatic; there is no guarantee that the person doing evil recognizes this bad relationship. Thus, Rand's definition of evil does not necessitate any conscious recognition of "evildoing." If I give money to someone in a way which further encourages their dependence on charity, I am doing evil under Rand's definition, because my actions do not accord with a proper rational value structure. I personally find this to be very divergent from the normal conception of the term "evil." Most people would not call this evil. However, it is this conception of the term that allows Rand to call altruism evil, because it is a code that flouts the requirements of a flourishing human life. When Rand calls altruism evil, she is not saying that the practice of altruism involves a conscious intent to do bad, or that all altruists are aware of doing harm to themselves and others. She is merely saying that the code of altruism leads one to take actions that are not appropriate to one's own pursuit of happiness. Now, she does very often motivate her altruistic characters with consciously evil motives. James Taggart wants Galt dead more than he wants himself to live, and Toohey reveals himself as consciously evil in his speech. However, this is not a necessity of altruism. Because knowledge is not automatic, there is no guarantee that everyone who advocates altruism is aware that it contradicts the requirements of man's life. In fact, most people are unaware of this. Practicing altruism does not require conscious evil. However, because it sets people's interests against one another, it very often breeds a malevolent attitude towards others. The prolonged practice of altruism can lead to a consciously evil mindset, but most people at least initially advocate altruism out of a feeling of goodwill towards others. People simply do not understand that altruism is ultimately incompatible with benevolence or good will. Malevolence is a term which, even in Objectivism, retains its connotation of conscious disregard for the welfare of others. I would thus say that the Objectivist definitions of malevolence and evil are very different from each other, but malevolence is actually closer in meaning to what most people commonly understand by "evil." In summation, altruism is inherently evil, in the Objectivist understanding of the term, but it does not require conscious malevolence on the part of the altruist, although it does tend to lead to that if practiced consistently enough.

If there's a rational reason to reject the conclusion outright, then it's not a logically sound conclusion in the first place.

If I'm understanding the two sides of this debate correctly, both agree that punishing prisoners in proportion to the crime they have committed is morally proper, and it is morally improper to punish beyond the extent of the rights violation (i.e. it is improper to punish more than is merited by the crime). One side believes that people forfeit rights when they violate the rights of others. The other side believes that people forfeit the obligation to respect those rights when they violate others' rights. One side believes that rights cease to exist to the extent that the holder violates others' rights. The other side believes that rights continue to exist but cease to deserve respect to the extent that the holder violates others' rights. Is this summation correct as far as it goes?